Favoritism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When favoring it is a crime of multiple jurisdictions. It threatens with the penalty of assisting a criminal after his act with the intention of securing the advantages of his act.

In the German Criminal Code (StGB), the offense is regulated in Section 257 of the Special Part in Section 257 of the StGB. There, favoritism as well as thwarting punishment ( § 258 StGB), stealing ( § 259 StGB) and money laundering ( § 261 StGB) are among the offenses . It criminalizes assistance given with the intention of securing the benefits of the offense to the perpetrator of the predicate offense. The criminal liability of the beneficiary is intended to prevent third parties from supporting the perpetrator at the expense of the victim and the administration of justice after the offender has committed. This means that the offense is closely related to the aiding and abetting of a criminal offense ( Section 27 of the Criminal Code), in which the execution of the offense by someone else is encouraged. Section 257 of the Criminal Code has been included in the Criminal Code since it came into force. A major structural change took place with effect from January 1, 1975, creating the independent offense of obstruction of punishment.

A prison sentence of up to five years or a fine can be imposed for the beneficiary . The clarification rate of the favored offenses for the reported offenses is over 90% at an above-average level.

Normalization

The offense of preferential treatment is standardized in Section 257 of the Criminal Code and has been as follows since it was last changed on January 1, 1975:

(1) Anyone who helps another who has committed an illegal act with the intention of securing the benefits of the act is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine.

(2) The punishment may not be more severe than the punishment threatened for the predicate offense.

(3) Anyone who is liable to participate in the previous offense will not be punished for favoritism. This does not apply to anyone who incites someone who was not involved in the predicate offense to favor it.

(4) The beneficiary will only be prosecuted on application, with authorization or on request of a criminal offense, if the beneficiary as the perpetrator or participant of the predicate offense could only be prosecuted on request, with authorization or on request of a criminal offense. § 248a applies accordingly.

Because of the standard range of penalties of up to five years' imprisonment or a fine, the favoritism according to Section 12 (2) StGB is an offense .

From a systematic point of view, the offense of favoritism represents an abstract endangering offense: the threat of punishment is intended to prevent third parties from helping a criminal to gain advantages for themselves from the offense. On the one hand, this is intended to prevent the restoration of the lawful state from being made more difficult to the detriment of the victim. On the other hand, the offender should be deprived of the incentive to commit further crimes. Thus, § 257 StGB protects both the interest of the victim of the predicate offense in the easiest possible restoration of the lawful status as well as the general interest in the simplest possible investigation and prevention of criminal offenses.

History of origin

Like the other follow-up offenses in criminal law, preferential treatment was originally regarded as a special form of aid, which is why it was not regulated in the form of an independent criminal offense, but as a form of participation . In the 19th century, these forms of participation were increasingly viewed as independent offenses, so that they were upgraded to facts. This development began with receiving stolen goods, which was given its own penal standard in the Prussian penal code of 1851.

The Criminal Code of the German Empire (RStGB), which came into force on January 1, 1872, followed on from the independence of the follow-up offenses and, with Section 257 of the Criminal Code, created an offense of favoritism that read as follows:

(1) Anyone who, after the commission of a crime or offense, knowingly assists the perpetrator or participant in order to evade punishment or to secure the advantages of the crime or offense, is liable to a fine of up to two hundred thalers or to prison up to a year and, if he provides this assistance for his advantage, to be punished with imprisonment. However, the type or degree of punishment must not be more severe than that threatened on the act itself.

(2) Favoring is unpunished if it was granted to the perpetrator or participant by a relative in order to evade him from punishment.

(3) The favor is to be punished as an aid if it was promised before the act was committed. This provision also suffers from applying to dependents.

The earlier Section 257 of the Criminal Code was broader than the current one, in that it covered both the securing of offense advantages and the protection of the predecessor from criminal prosecution. Assistance acts according to the facts related to both the fruits of the act (objective favoring) and the person of the perpetrator (personal favoring).

The norm of the RStGB was adopted in the StGB of the Federal Republic of Germany without change. A new version took effect on January 1, 1975. As a result, personal preferential treatment was outsourced from Section 257 of the Criminal Code and transferred to the newly created offense of obstruction ( Section 258 of the Criminal Code). Since then, preferential treatment has only included the receipt of benefits.

Objective fact

Predicate offense

The preferential treatment is linked to the illegal act of another. According to § 11 Paragraph 1 Number 5 StGB, any criminal offense can be considered as a predicate offense . A mere administrative offense is therefore not sufficient . In contrast to the offense of receiving stolen goods, the group of suitable predicate offenses in Section 257 of the Criminal Code is not limited to criminal offenses directed against someone else's property. The predicate offense must be punishable under German law. Whether they also by law enforcement authorities pursuing may be, is irrelevant to the prevailing opinion. Thus, a predicate offense also exists if, for example, there is no necessary criminal complaint or the possibility of criminal prosecution has expired .

In order for an offense to be a predicate offense to a beneficiary, it must meet the criteria of a criminal law and be committed in an unlawful manner. In contrast to Section 258 of the Criminal Code, Section 257 of the Criminal Code does not require that the act be culpably committed. This is based on the fact that the criminal offense is intended to promote the enforcement of the criminal claim, while Section 257 of the Criminal Code pursues other protective purposes for which the culpability of the act does not matter. The predicate offense does not have to be completed , so that the beneficiary also applies to the attempt of a Can be linked to a crime. If the predicate offense has an objective condition of criminal liability , this must, however, have occurred.

The predicate offense must be someone else's offense. It does not fall under Section 257 of the Criminal Code if the sole perpetrator favored the predicate offense. This is not an independent injustice, but a logical consequence of the predicate offense, which is why it is already taken into account in the offense. If the predecessor favors both himself and a third party, he acts in favor of another, which is why he fulfills the offense of § 257 StGB. However, according to Section 257, Paragraph 3, Clause 1 of the Criminal Code, he is unpunished as he has not committed an injustice that requires an independent threat of punishment. The same applies to a person who was only a participant in the predicate offense.

Because of the parallels between beneficiaries and aid, it is controversial in jurisprudence in what relation the beneficiary to aid in the previous offense is. This delimitation difficulty is due to the fact that case law assumes that aid can also be provided after an act has been completed. This successive aid is differentiated by case law from the beneficiary on the basis of the will of the perpetrator: If the supporter wants to promote the act, there is aid. However, if he only wants to receive the benefits of his act from the predecessor, there is preferential treatment. According to another view, the aid to the predicate offense displaces the preferential treatment. Both views are opposed to a view that rejects the figure of successive aid. According to this view, favoritism and aid do not come into play side by side, which is why the delimitation difficulty does not arise: it only applies the aid until the previous offense has been completed, and only § 257 StGB after its completion .

The predecessor must have derived an advantage from his act that he is legally not entitled to. One such advantage is, for example, the loot obtained from theft ( Section 242 of the Criminal Code). The advantage does not have to be an asset, so that, for example, an illegally obtained license to practice medicine is also part of the offense. The benefit to be secured must result directly from the act. This is lacking, for example, when the perpetrator hands over the proceeds from the sale of stolen booty to the predecessor, because this does not come from the theft as an act of attachment, but from an independent act that is detached from it.

Help

Section 257 of the Criminal Code makes it a punishable offense to provide assistance to the predecessor. As in the case of aiding and abetting, this is an extremely broad act of offense: Any support of the predecessor following the offense, such as hiding prey or misleading investigative authorities, can be considered as assistance. Failure to do so can also constitute assistance, such as the wrongful failure tointerveneagainst the keeping of a thing by the perpetrator.

It is controversial in jurisprudence what quality the action must have. According to the wording of Section 257 (1) StGB, any act is sufficient. With this finding it leaves a view so that it does not place any further demands on the act of the offense. On the other hand, the prevailing opposing view demands that the act is at least suitable to secure an advantage for the predecessor. On the other hand, it is not necessary that the act actually leads to an advantage being secured. This restriction is based on the consideration that the conditions for preferential treatment should not be less than those for aid. This assumes that the assistance has an effect on the deed.

Actions that are in the interest of the person to whom the benefit to be secured is legally entitled are not considered a matter of fact. For example, it is not forbidden to provide assistance if someone knowingly repairs a stolen television or looks after a stolen animal.

Subjective fact

The perpetrator must act with intent with regard to all objective elements of the offense. Any form of intent is sufficient, including contingent intent . The perpetrator must therefore at least have knowledge of the objective characteristics of the offense and accept the occurrence of the offense. This requires in particular that he realizes that the predecessor's benefit is the direct consequence of an illegal crime. It is not necessary here for the perpetrator to recognize which offense this criminal offense represents, so that any error made by the perpetrator in this regard is irrelevant.

In addition, the offender must act with the intention of securing advantages for the previous offender. This applies when the offender's main concern is to secure the previous offender's benefits through his / her actions.

Litigation and sentencing

The act is generally prosecuted ex officio as an official offense, so that a criminal complaint is not required. In deviation from this, Section 257 (4) of the Criminal Code names two cases in which a criminal complaint is required: On the one hand, this is the case if a criminal complaint is required to prosecute the offense to which the beneficiary act relates. On the other hand, due to the reference to Section 248a StGB, an application is not required if the beneficiary only causes minor damage and there is no particular public interest in the act. The yardstick here is solely the damage that occurs as a result of the beneficiary, so that Section 257 (4) sentence 2 StGB also covers the case in which the benefit protection relates to a low-value part of high-value loot.

These regulations are intended to ensure that the perpetrator of the beneficiary is not more liable than the perpetrator of the predicate offense. This purpose is also pursued by Section 257 (2) of the Criminal Code, according to which the penalty for the beneficiary may not be higher than the penalty with which the basic offense is threatened.

According to Section 257, Paragraph 3, Clause 1 of the Criminal Code, anyone who is already liable for participation in the previous offense is not punished for favoritism. Section 257, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the Criminal Code makes an exception to this: It stipulates that a predecessor is liable to prosecution for inciting a person who is not involved in the predicate offense to secure advantages. This exception is based on the allegation against the previous offender of causing an innocent bystanders to commit a criminal offense.

Since the preferential treatment constitutes an offense due to its scope of punishment, the criminal liability of the attempt does not already follow from Section 23 (1) StGB, but requires an explicit order. There is no such thing. The attempt to favor is therefore unpunished.

The favoritism is both completed and ended as soon as the perpetrator has taken his act. From this point begins according § 78a of the Criminal Code, the limitation period . According to Section 78 Paragraph 3 Number 4 StGB, this is five years. The limitation period for the beneficiary begins regardless of the limitation period for the previous offense.

A possibility of reduced sentences or -aufhebung by active repentance looks § 257 not before the Criminal Code. It is controversial in jurisprudence whether the remorse provisions of other offenses apply analogously to § 257 StGB. Proponents argue that such a regulation would be necessary, since the similarly structured offense of money laundering provides for a corresponding provision. Other voices object to this that the legislature consciously decided against such a provision in favor of the beneficiary.

Law competitions

If further offenses are committed when committing a favor, these offenses are in legal competition with one another . If other offenses are also realized through a favoring act, these stand for favoritism as a single act ( Section 52 StGB). This often applies to statements and other follow-up offenses. If it is unclear whether the offender's act constitutes beneficiary or another offense, an election determination can be considered, provided that the other offense is comparable to the beneficiary. This applies, for example, to theft, obstruction of punishment and receiving stolen goods.

criminology

Recorded cases of favoritism, obstruction of punishment, stolen goods and money laundering in the years 1987–2016.

The Federal Criminal Police Office annually publishes statistics on all criminal offenses reported in Germany, the police crime statistics . The entire federal territory has been covered since 1993. The statistics from 1991 and 1992 included the old federal states and all of Berlin. Earlier statistics only cover the old federal states.

The preferential treatment is recorded in the statistics together with the other follow-up offenses. Their clearance rate is consistently over 90% compared to other offenses.

Police crime statistics for favoritism, obstruction of punishment, stolen goods and money laundering in the Federal Republic of Germany
Cases recorded
year All in all Per 100,000 inhabitants Proportion of attempted acts
(absolute / relative) 		Clearance rate
1987 30,445 49.8 1,677 (5.5%) 99.5%
1988 28,961 47.3 1,672 (5.8%) 99.1%
1989 24,516 39.7 1,513 (6.2%) 99.1%
1990 23,060 36.8 1,517 (6.6%) 99.2%
1991 24,813 38.2 1,380 (5.6%) 98.3%
1992 28,275 43.0 1,315 (4.7%) 99.4%
1993 26,541 32.8 1,379 (5.2%) 99.1%
1994 25,714 31.6 1,508 (5.9%) 98.9%
1995 28,525 35.0 1,762 (6.2%) 98.7%
1996 30,273 37.0 1,758 (5.8%) 99.2%
1997 29,258 35.7 1,733 (5.9%) 98.5%
1998 30,569 37.3 2,003 (6.6%) 98.5%
1999 29,491 35.9 1,881 (6.4%) 98.0%
2000 29,479 35.9 1,879 (6.4%) 97.8%
2001 29,033 35.3 1,828 (6.3%) 97.6%
2002 28.192 34.2 1,842 (6.5%) 97.4%
2003 28,459 34.5 1,815 (6.4%) 97.4%
2004 28.191 34.2 1,905 (6.8%) 97.9%
2005 28,950 35.1 1,906 (6.6%) 96.6%
2006 28,964 35.1 2,012 (6.9%) 97.0%
2007 27,109 32.9 2,219 (8.2%) 97.0%
2008 25,520 31.0 2,333 (9.1%) 97.0%
2009 25,791 31.5 2,546 (9.9%) 96.5%
2010 26,862 32.8 2,502 (9.3%) 95.7%
2011 28,759 35.2 2,935 (10.2%) 95.0%
2012 28,416 34.7 2,698 (9.5%) 95.0%
2013 30,879 38.3 2,814 (9.1%) 95.0%
2014 30.502 37.8 2,567 (8.4%) 95.1%
2015 29,890 36.8 2,375 (7.9%) 94.8%
2016 31,120 37.9 2,377 (7.6%) 93.0%

Legal situation in other states

Unlike in Germany, the preferential treatment in Austria and Switzerland is structured. There it is assigned to the offenses against the administration of justice. It makes it a criminal offense to evade someone from prosecution , the execution of a sentence or the execution of a measure. In German law, this is covered by the offense of obstruction.

literature

  • Karsten Altenhain: § 257 . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  • Steffen Cramer, Frank Pascal: § 257 . In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  • Frank Dietmeier: § 257 . In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 257 .
  • Bernd Hecker, Walter Stree: § 257 . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Kristian Kühl: § 257 . In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Klaus Pflieger, Carsten Momsen: § 257 . In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  • Felix Ruhmannseder: § 257 . In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  • Tonio Walter: § 257 . In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .

Web links

  • § 257 StGB on dejure.org - legal text with information on case law and cross-references
  • Jan Dehne-Niemann: Problems of preferential treatment (§ 257 StGB) - Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 . In: Journal for Legal Studies 2009.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d Karsten Altenhain: § 257 , Rn. 1. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  2. ↑ Steffen Cramer, Frank Pascal: § 257 , Rn. 2-3. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  3. ↑ a b Jan Dehne-Niemann: Problems of Favoring (§ 257 StGB) - Part 1. In: Journal for Legal Studies. 2009, p. 142 (143).
  4. ↑ Matthias Jahn, Dana Reichart: Die Anschlussdelikte - Favored (§ 257 StGB) . In: Juristische Schulung 2009, p. 309 (309-310).
  5. ^ Tonio Walter: § 257 , Rn. 1. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  6. ↑ a b c Frank Dietmeier: § 257 , Rn. 2. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  7. ↑ Steffen Cramer, Frank Pascal: § 257 , Rn. 7. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  8. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 257 , Rn. 8. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  9. ↑ Steffen Cramer, Frank Pascal: § 257 , Rn. 8. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  10. ↑ Frank Dietmeier: § 257 , Rn. 7. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  11. ↑ a b Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 46, marginal no. 2.
  12. ^ Tonio Walter: § 257 , Rn. 87. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  13. ↑ Nikolaus Bosch: Basic questions of favoritism - a plea for asset-based restriction of the facts . In: Jura 2012, p. 270 (277).
  14. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 257 , Rn. 8. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  15. ↑ Jan Dehne-Niemann: Problems of Favoring (§ 257 StGB) - Part 1. In: Journal for legal studies. 2009, p. 142 (144).
  16. ↑ BGHSt 4, 132 (133).
  17. ↑ Steffen Cramer, Frank Pascal: § 257 , Rn. 24. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  18. ↑ Klaus Geppert: On the relationship between perpetration / participation in the predicate offense and subsequent objective benefit (Section 257 of the Criminal Code) . In: Jura 1994, p. 441 (443).
  19. ^ Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Manfred Maiwald, Reinhart Maurach: criminal law, special part. Teilbd. 1. Offenses against personal and property rights . 10th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2009, ISBN 978-3-8114-9613-2 , § 101, Rn. 6th
  20. ↑ Harro Otto: Basic Course in Criminal Law . 7th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2005, ISBN 3-89949-228-5 , § 57, Rn. 4th
  21. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 257 , Rn. 14. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  22. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 242 , Rn. 131. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  23. ^ Tonio Walter: § 257 , Rn. 101 . In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  24. ↑ BGHSt 24, 166 (168).
  25. ↑ BGHSt 36, 277 (281).
  26. ↑ BGH, decision of April 29, 2008, 4 StR 148/08 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2008, p. 516.
  27. ↑ Frank Dietmeier: § 257 , Rn. 17. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  28. ↑ Jan Dehne-Niemann: Problems of Favoring (§ 257 StGB) - Part 1. In: Journal for legal studies. 2009, pp. 142 (151-153).
  29. ↑ Kurt Seelmann: Basic cases of the offenses against the property as a whole . In: Juristische Schulung 1983, p. 32 (34).
  30. ↑ BGHSt 24, 166 (167).
  31. ↑ Frank Dietmeier: § 257 , Rn. 14. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  32. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 46, marginal no. 7th
  33. ↑ Kristian Kühl: Criminal Law General Part . 7th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-8006-4494-0 , §; 5, Rn. 43.
  34. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 46, marginal no. 11.
  35. ↑ Jan Dehne-Niemann: Problems of Favoring (§ 257 StGB) - Part 2. In: Journal for legal studies. 2009, p. 248.
  36. ↑ Bernd Hecker, Walter Stree: § 257 , Rn. 10. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  37. ↑ Tobias Witzigmann: Possible functions and meanings of the concept of intention in criminal law . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2009, p. 488 (491).
  38. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 257 , Rn. 42. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  39. ↑ Frank Dietmeier: § 257 , Rn. 31-32. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  40. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 257 , Rn. 10. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  41. ↑ Bernd Hecker, Walter Stree: § 257 , Rn. 27. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  42. ↑ Jan Dehne-Niemann: Problems of Favoring (§ 257 StGB) - Part 1. In: Journal for legal studies. 2009, p. 142 (145).
  43. ↑ Steffen Cramer, Frank Pascal: § 257 , Rn. 33. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  44. ↑ Klaus Pflieger, Carsten Momsen: § 257 , Rn. 4. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - subsidiary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  45. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 257 , Rn. 43-44. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  46. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 257 , Rn. 34. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  47. ↑ Steffen Cramer, Frank Pascal: § 257 , Rn. 27. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  48. ↑ Klaus Pflieger, Carsten Momsen: § 257 , Rn. 19. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - subsidiary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  49. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 257 , Rn. 43-44. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  50. ↑ a b PKS time series 1987 to 2016. (No longer available online.) Federal Criminal Police Office, 23 May 2016, formerly in the original ; accessed on September 21, 2017 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.bka.de  
  51. ↑ Police crime statistics. Federal Criminal Police Office, accessed on September 17, 2017 .